Just over a year ago, leaders from Europe and Africa met in Malta’s capital, for the so-called Valletta Summit. The Summit was part of a series of European steps towards a deeper cooperation with African countries on migration. The Summit’s aim was to start joint actions to address displacement, irregular migration, and development.
The rationale behind this type of cooperation is that, by joining forces, Europe and Africa can help save lives, dismantle migrant smuggling networks, prevent irregular migration and open up channels for legal migration. Cooperation can ultimately result in win-win solutions to address a common issue and prevent future crises. Embracing these intentions, European and African leaders signed a Declaration and an Action Plan, which is now being implemented.
The European Union (EU) and African countries have held at least 35 high-level discussions since Valletta and four joint statements on migration have been signed. The EU has also made migration one of its foreign policy priorities, illustrated by the profusion of several recently agreed policies and the creation of different funds to finance their implementation. The EU has displayed a will to draft policies that, rather than proposing one-size-fits-all solutions, reflect the complexities behind migration. Tailored cooperation with partner countries is helping to ensure policies are more comprehensive and based on a long-term vision. Also, more actors are being involved, such as the private sector.
There is a discrepancy between aspirations of the new partnership approach and the reality of how it is applied in practice. The EU partnership approach with Africa seems imbalanced with the EU putting much energy into achieving better cooperation regarding returning migrants to their land of origin and addressing irregular migration through better border governance while other aspects, such as creating legal routes for migration, are given less importance. Not surprisingly, it is in the latter aspects where the wording of the Valletta Action Plan has been more vague and implementation has been slower.
In implementing the outcomes of the Summit, Europe has displayed a more interest-based attitude, with elements of coercion in its recent policy documents, and has adopted a new framework for its external relations on migration based on conditionality. There are still questions to what extent such a more ‘coercive’ attitude complies with the notion of a ‘true partnership’ with Africa, which seemed the basis for the agreement in Valletta. Europe has also aimed at reintroducing some policies that had been rejected by African states collectively in Valletta, in the bilateral accords that the EU currently negotiates with a number of African countries. This means that a number of African partners are becoming more circumspect about the European Union’s approach with a knock-on effect on trust levels between the two blocks.
A more balanced approach in the Valletta implementation and a (re-)building of trust, e.g. through engaging more with African continental and regional organizations at a strategic level beyond bilateral approaches, could be in the long-term interest of Europe. These bodies may “have an important role to play in promoting labour standards and reducing irregular movements.”They may be also an important stepping-stone and part of improving global governance on migration connecting the national level with global aspirations of having ‘safe regular and orderly’ migration. The EU claims that its objective is to have a long-term strategic approach to the deep-seated drivers of irregular migration and displacement, but in reality, it is still working in ‘crisis mode’ due to the influx of refugees on the continent which leads to actions with a short-term focus on stemming these mixed flows.
For example, European projects under the EU Trust Fund, a fund which aims at addressing development challenges including migration, have raised concerns about their respect for longer-term aid effectiveness principles such as building on local knowledge and ownership. The political expectation that quick actions through development cooperation would display immediate results in the area of irregular migration and stop aspirations to migrate is not based on strong foundations and can be counter-productive if respect for human rights is a casualty of such approaches.
For some of the projects it seems that the pressure by EU member states to act quick has led to giving priority to establish projects that can be communicated to voters over the quality of the actions chosen. It has meant that time for trust building and coordination with local partners has been cut short. Though it may be too early to tell how this affects results, it may mark a departure of such principles of good donorship also in future cooperation. EU’s High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy and European Commission Vice President Federica Mogherini stated during a speech at the UN Migration Summit: “We believe in partnerships. Solutions cannot be imposed, they can only be agreed upon. Priorities are set together with each partner country.”
It is now time for the EU to practice precisely this approach.The European Union can better address the migration situation with its African partners if trust is built and genuine cooperation is sought. This requires frank discussions on where mutual interests lie and where they diverge, and being open to truly listening to African partners.
What is needed are efforts towards investing in mutual processes with African partners, moving away from the current predominant focus on getting results for the EU’s own short-term objectives through bilateral deals.
This commentary is published in partnership between Fortune and Afroline (Italy).
Leave a Reply